28 Feb 2025 07:24:14
Have just been reading quotes from Todd Boenly and I know a few will disagree but I like him as an owner and think he will be a successful owner if he is able to buy out clearlake. The odd negative like owning shares in the ticket resell agency but his investments in other sports teams look to be positive and they don't shy away from spending money.
He admits it's been a steep learning curve and they got things wrong
In my opinion if possible the sooner he can buy out Clearlake the better . having joint owners who want different things cannot be good .
Sure many will disagree but we could of done a lot worse for owners when at the time the clubs very existence was up in the air.
As with most things time will tell
I think some part of this ownership have to be in charge for a set number of years as part of the deal to buy the club if this is true I hope this is Boehly .
28 Feb 2025 08:45:47
Seymns,
I believe that all or part of the ownership cannot sell the Club for 10 years.
I agree totally that joint ownership does not work (nor does joint SD's) however I'm pretty sure Clearlake have made it clear that if one goes, it's going to be Bohely. I think we are going to have to stumble along with joint ownership.
I also noticed that after nearly 3 years we are no nearer to a decision on SB and that to me is already a total failure by the ownership.
28 Feb 2025 12:26:56
Seymns, I have only read the report on the TB presentation.
I read as him being quite a horizontal character who sounds comfortable with his investment. He target one barbed comment at the uk press and I think that he and Clearlake have learned a valuable lesson on that score. The joint ownership thing doesn’t really bother me and neither does having two SD’s.
Bill, you keep bring up the SB development and making comments as if nothing is happening. The Club has bought a piece of land that could be useful if they decide to redevelop SB but they are still looking at alternatives. This was made very clear a few days ago when a senior CFC was asked questions at a CPO meeting. No doubt the summary of that meeting will appear in the CPO mins.
These owners are understandably looking at all the options today and potential options tomorrow. RA had the club for 18 years ish and didn’t lay a brick but he apparently did try to “arrange” the purchase of the CPO freehold and give us a a lovely model of a ground that will in all probability never be built.
28 Feb 2025 12:28:26
Tod Boehly has made mistakes particularly at the beginning but he is a sports person he improved the fortunes of the LA Dodgers and redeveloped their stadium. I doubt whether he could buy out Clearlake. As for the stadium I agree a decision should be made, however, RA could not solve it and there are numerous obstacles that are well documented. I doubt very much that a new stadium will be built on the current site. I am sure that if a suitable site was available and the CPO approved the owners would get on with it but that too seems improbable.
28 Feb 2025 13:43:02
I am convinced that the far to often maligned CPO will trade the freehold of Stamford Bridge and the CFC name if the correct assurances are given by these owners or any other owner.
I am also convinced that RA would have got the CPO’s blessing if the correct procedure had been followed. I will put that episode down to poor advice.
28 Feb 2025 16:01:33
I think buying out Clearlake is a possibility but they would need to make money on their investment, and Boehly would probably need some help with the finance,
28 Feb 2025 17:55:47
Hi Tom, I hope you are well.
I make mo apologies going after pur owners re the SB project.
They came into the club shouting out loud about either redeveloping SB or a new build somewhere else.
To date they have bought land but who knows if will assist the development or is just another asset for Blue Co.
28 Feb 2025 21:50:55
Bill, the redevelopment of SB or a move to a location that meets the criteria that’s makes the CPO and general supporter happy will take as much time as it took RA.
I’m not sure why the present owners are coming in for pelters on an issue that will not be addressed for years. We are based in Chelsea/ Fulham not Niirth or East London.
01 Mar 2025 08:27:36
Or Manchester, Merseyside, the North East and finally the Midlands.
I say this because Liverpool increased their capacity, Everton built a new ground, Newcastle are near announcement of a new stadium rebuild and Aston Villa will do the same, and then their is us 3 years down the line with no decision, no doubt that will suit the CPO down to rge ground as they still hold control over what owners can do.
The idea of the CPO when set up was to protect the future of our club, not to hinder it.
Sorry Tom, this is not a dug at you as I know you are a CPO, but the entity in general.
01 Mar 2025 09:34:38
Bill, you have to get a few things straight about the CPO. Yes it was set up to protect the name and the the housing development of Stamford Bridge. The vote that took place while RA was the the owner became a farce when it was obvious that a third party was trying to buy up a substantial amount of CPO shares so as to secure the required 75% majority vote.
After that episode there are some CPO members who will want assurances. I personally voted in favour of the RA proposal but I can understand some shareholders concerns.
There are supposedly restrictions on expanding the existing ground, apparently the most most bizarre being a view of St Paul’s from a mound in Richmond. On top of that we have a two railways and a cemetery that restricts certain proposals. All these restrictions are just as much outside of the current owners control as they were with RA’s. I can almost guarantee you that the CPO will sell the Freehold and naming rights back to the club when its long term future is secured. That is what it was set up to do and that’s what it will do.
Comparing the new build of Everton’s ground to Chelsea just isn’t reasonable. As far as I know there is only one piece of land that could be available within about a five mile radius of Chelsea’s current stadium and that opportunity looks extremely unlikely as the current owners have put forward a plan without a football stadium. With all due respect to Villa and Newcastle we are located in probably the most expensive area of the UK. I personally would be happy to move away completely from the Chelsea area but can you imagine the uproar from probably the majority of fans?
I’m not a builder or a planning expert but I would just rebuild the East Stand and Shed End but I’m sure the club have looked at all the options.
01 Mar 2025 10:03:02
Bill, I should have added that the Chairman of the CPO at its annual meeting touched on the subject of any SB development. He sighted the ongoing communication between the club owners and the CPO and gave an opinion that there the process is likely to take a long time. The Chairman also reminded its shareholders of the unique purpose of the CPO.
01 Mar 2025 12:59:51
Tom
What happened about building down at SB, that seems to have gone the same way as all rhe other nob plans.
I'm passionate about this project as I want future generations to have a club still rated as one if the best in the world and is competitive. Sadly it won't be if we don't develop or move away.
01 Mar 2025 13:29:32
IBill, I understand why some fans and my guess the owners want to increase our stadium fan capacity but as I have said many times I can’t see it happening in the next ten years. RA struggled to find a viable solution and just can’t see our current owners finding a solution.
Also, let me make it clear and this is my opinion and maybe the opinion of the majority of CPO’s that if a workable plan is ever put forward to the CPO shareholders along with the security laid out it’s articles of corporation then then CPO shareholders will almost certainly give that project the green light.
I can’t think another club in the uk that has an CPO type model. Although I believe some German clubs have fan ownership/ shareholding that at a pinch I suppose could be described as similar.
01 Mar 2025 19:12:05
Tom, I will wait and see what the owners plans are for SB. The CPO is nothing like the system in Germany where the supporters own 51% of the club and influence who the presidents etc are. You are bigging up the CPO. There is no point in redeveloping the East Stand and Shed End it would not significantly increase capacity or made the stadium fit for the 21st century. I have no idea what the decision will be but it is more likely to do nothing. If that is the case, we will need success on the field, top class sponsorship and ticket price increases. I don’t see either of the first two happening.
01 Mar 2025 19:49:24
Jimbo, I have no idea if seating capacity would be increased if the East Stand and Shed end were rebuilt and made in my opinion fit for purpose. The hotels should also be knocked down.
I thought I made it clear that that my comparison was at a “pinch” with any German model. My tenuous comparison is more about the responsibility afforded to the CPO. It was formed to protect football on the Stamford Bridge site and that club will be called CFC. As far as I know that is a unique UK football club responsibility. I am proud to be a CPO shareholder and can honestly say there has only been one occasion when I have heard overwhelming discontent from its members/ shareholders towards any owner. I’m.
01 Mar 2025 21:31:12
Tom, I am fully aware of why the CPO was formed. The real test would be if the the option put forward was to move to a different site. Frankly, the idea of of a brand new stadium on the existing site is unrealistic. I await the club’s decision with interest.
02 Mar 2025 02:38:42
I can only see problems happening if the owners wanted to move a long way from SB.
02 Mar 2025 11:35:30
It's quite clear that where we are situated is hindering the Bridge development.
The only option is to move and if that helps us to gemrow financially, I really don't mind where.
The CPO can keep the ground but I can't for the life of me see what good it does them by keeping the name.
Who knows, ww might end up in the MLS as Chelsea Amwrica FC, is that what the CPO want?
02 Mar 2025 12:42:47
Bill the CPO can only keep the ground for the use of football not for any other potential development. If I remember correctly the RA point was that no move from SB could be afforded without the sale of SB and the revenue from the sale went towards any new build. Again if remember correctly that any new stadium build had to within a three mile radius of SB. To me that seemed a reasonable proposal. I remain convinced that the vote would have been different if there had not been evidence of pre vote share purchases from a small amount of people.
The name issue is very important. If the current owners ever wished to do a Wimbledon type move then they can’t use the name CFC. I think that is perfectly reasonable.